Can LL enter flat without permission?

[wildsummerdreams]

Hi all, our landlord wants to enter the flat for a routine safety inspection, but I'm away travelling and don't want her to be in the flat without us there. I've asked her to rearrange the visit but she's being quite persistent.

I feel this is an invasion of our privacy. Would it be breach of contract if she enters the flat without our permission?

A landlord generally has the right to enter a property with reasonable notice to carry out repairs or assess any that are required. If it says that in your contract too, you would be in breach by not letting them in. I am not sure of your objections if you’re not there anyway. The stuff up thread re kidnapping your first born is bonkers. The law and most leases allow them to enter with notice.

Nope.

The problem is that many people, landlords and tenants included, mistake the How To Rent guidebook's statement that 'landlord's must give at least 24 hours notice of visits for things like repairs' to mean '...and so if the landlord's given that notice, he's got full right to enter'.

It's nothing so clearcut.

A tenant who never responds to requests for access, who never reports or allows the landlord to fix maintenance issues and who denies all inspections is clearly being obstructive. There's a possibility the landlord would be able to claim against them for the costs of maintenance issues which have gone neglected and escalated, damaging the property.

But no matter how unhelpful the tenant is being, it would still be a very unwise move to enter the property against their express wishes, or even to assume consent to enter when there's been no communication.

I appreciate this is crap for landlords who just want to maintain their property, and that it would be perfectly reasonable for them to end their contact with the tenant at the earliest possible opportunity. Still: despite the tenant's behavior, letting yourself into the property would still leave you open to charges of trespass and harassment, so it would be vital to get legal advise and only do this as a last resort (if ever).

It's a lot less complicated when a tenant isn't being maliciously or negligently obstructive; when, for example, they're simply requiring that inspections or visits should take place when they're present. A landlord may consider this annoying, unecessary, or (how charming) 'uppity'. But it's a reasonable requirement, protected by the right to quiet enjoyment, and a landlord who pressures or incorrectly forces tenants into unsupervised visits is going to get in serious trouble for this at some point, especially if there's a written record of them harassing the tenant or misrepresenting their rights. Harassment may include implied threats to terminate the tenancy. And nobody is fooled by excuses that the landlord is only trying to perform their legal duties, when it's obvious that they're trying to perform their legal duties in a manner which is most convenient and economical to them, contrary to the tenants' wishes.

Many tenants are confused about their rights or reluctant to complain, especially if the landlord implies their tenancy will not be renewed if they continue to be 'difficult'. It's expensive and disruptive to move, and landlords know this.

But one day a landlord will make the mistake of trying this with a tenant who knows their rights, has the resources to protect them, and isn't reliant on the rental continuing indefinitely.

I've never lived in an HMO, so I don't know how the regulations differ, but anecdotally it seems the landlord has free access to communal areas but tenants' rights to quiet enjoyment still apply in rooms they've rented for their exclusive use.

At any rate: a private letting contract never trumps UK law. 'Should' or 'must' give 24-hr notice doesn't mean 24-hrs notice is all that's required. Landlords need to recognise that their own perception of unreasonable tenant behaviour is subjective and may not actually reflect the legal situation.

"nobody is fooled by excuses that the landlord is only trying to perform their legal duties, when it's obvious that they're trying to perform their legal duties in a manner which is most convenient and economical to them, contrary to the tenants' wishes."

nicely put.

That post is bonkers. There’s no way entering once to do a fire safety inspection with more than reasonable notice when you are not even there would be considered inference with quiet enjoyment. Or harassment. It’s cray cray advice.

interesting to see the HMO red herring being introduced.

"owners of HMOs have the right to access shared areas, therefore they can march into private flats without the residents' consent"

here’s no way entering once to do a fire safety inspection with more than reasonable notice when you are not even there would be considered inference with quiet enjoyment

Without permission of the tenant, it absolutely would. The LL CANNOT DO THAT.

I'm apalled people are so surprised that tenants actually have the right to not have people just walk into their homes as they please.

It isn't "cray cray" though - that's the point.

For this reason I wouldn't renew a lease with a tenant who gave me a hard time over something like this

This is why people hate landlords. Because they are blackmailing cunts. "If you don't let me do as I want you're out", and people back down because you hold all the cards, and they get walked over.

Exactly, Slievenamon.

People need to distinguish their own opinion from the law.

You may see it as trivial to have someone enter the property when the tenant isn't there.

Legally, it's not considered trivial, if it's against the tenant's wishes or without consent.

It doesn't matter if it happens once or a hundred times, although of course a hundred times would show sustained and deliberate contempt for the tenant's rights, whereas you might be able to pass off once as just 'a misunderstanding'.

And IME it rarely is a one-off, because landlords who believe/pretend they have relatively free rights of access (24-hrs notice and you're done) tend to act that way long-term. Today it's the fire safety check, next month it's something else.

Still - by all means, do what you want and call the law 'cray cray'. Everyone knows that's a supertight legal defense.

I was reading a fascinating article in last weekends paper (cant remember which one) which basically said that landlords are parasites on society. Fair comment.

My landlord acts like he is doing me a massive favour by 'letting ' me live in his horrible damp little cottage. IN fact it is me doing him the favour, by renting it. I pointed this out to him recently and he has been remarkably quiet since.

Probably busy preparing the section 21 he wants to serve on me. Little does he know that i know that he is an unregistered , unlicensed
landlord and therefore cannot serve a notice on me.

Also he claims that the contract is 'not an AST' but he wants to treat it as such. He thinks that if he says it is 'not an AST' then tenancy laws wont apply to him.

His other tenants are from Bulgaria with quite poor English, and as for myself i might be a graduate and so on with perfectly good research skills, but i came from a homeless shelter and so he thought that i wouldn't be clued up, a bit like the Bulgarians.

Exploitative cunt, basically.

(Well: x-post, so not 'exactly' to the blackmailing cunts bit. I know there are decent landlords. But, yes, landlords who push tenants to comply with all the their requirements, no matter if these are supported by law, are misusing their position of power and they know it. Don't tell me you're a decent landlord when you're holding homelessness or another expensive house-move over someone's head.)

And those landlords would never dream of letting someone just walk into their own house without them being there, would they? Wouldn't see it as so trivial then

indeed Slieve. I actually said that to him, that he had no more right to walk into my house than i did into his. He didnt say anything just looked a bit shocked.
in his dodgy contract it is written in that he can let himself in if i am ever late with the rent...

I'm appalled people are so surprised that tenants actually have the right to not have people just walk into their homes as they please.

Tenants can be so uppity, can’t they.

I was reading a fascinating article in last weekends paper (cant remember which one) which basically said that landlords are parasites on society.

This one?
“Imagine how satisfyingly overcrowded the underworld must be with landlords; partitioning the seventh circle into seven more circles, charging each other extra for underfloor heating.”

yes that one! great article for me just now in my landlord situation!

In a lease in which the lessor’s repairing covenant is implied there is also implied a covenant by the lessee that the lessor, or any person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, enter the premises comprised in the lease for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair.

You guys are absolutely nuts. Obviously you cant just walk in to your tenants home. You must give notice (at least 24hrs) and you must have a valid reason (necessary repairs or inspections required by law). I also provide the details of the company hired to perform the work so the tenant knows whose coming in their home and that they are permitted to carry out the work. For inspections I get everything done at once so it's one visit and less intrusive for tenants. Not every inspector for fire safety can also perform gas checks or the necessary checks for appliances every 5 years.

LLs aren't scum or parasites. We are providing a service which is quite heavily regulated. I've been doing this for over 15 years at this point. We must comply with the laws in place to protect tenants. The HMO rules are very strict. I've provided links explaining the rules for HMOs. A fire inspection is a HMO item and a self contained flat can easily fall into being a HMO. A tenant can always call or visit their council and check this and ask when the next inspection is due.

But, Jon66, as has already been said: the covenant permitting landlord's access to a property does not supersede the implied common law covenant of quiet enjoyment.

It's well-documented that this means the two covenants may, in some circumstances, contradict each other, and the expectation is that a reasonable landlord and tenant will find a mutually-agreeable compromise.

The compromise can't be one-sided, though. If the tenant says they want to be present when the landlord visits, it's not acceptable that the landlord should say this is not convenient for them and quote the 24-hr regulation as proof they can enter the property against the tenant's wishes.

This is not considered to be excused/permitted by the covenant you quoted (which, again, does not trump the covenant to quiet enjoyment), and would not consititute adequate defense if the tenant then accused the landlord of harassment or trespass.

AFAIK, trespass in particular (entering without pemission) is a criminal issue, not just a breach of contract, which is why professional landlords are particularly careful not to get into any situation where accusations of this may apply. Legal advice always leans towards the cautious side on this, because the moment you enter the tenant's home against their wishes you've very clearly committed an act which may result in legal action. It doesn't matter whether it was just more convenient to the landlord, or they feel the tenant's been unreasonable, or they think the covenant you quoted excuses them (it doesn't).

It's one thing to give your tenants the impression that they should give you access without qualification, providing you've given 24-hrs notice - this is pretty crappy (and may constitute harassment), but at least you're getting consent, albeit reluctant and on questionable grounds.

But if the tenant says you can't access without them, and you go ahead anyway? Huge problem.

Want2bSupermum they certainly are. S11, I quoted above is the law. And anyway, why would your tenant be awkward? It's for their benefit too the property is kept in good condition.

S11 of the landlord and Tenant Act 1988 states that you can enter the property with the giving of 24 hours notice. If I enter my property to carry out a gas safety check and have given 24 hours notice I am not in breach of my tenants right to quiet enjoyment I am carrying out a statutory duty and I do not think there is any dj in the land who would uphold a civil complaint that I am 'harrassing' my tenant for doing so or uphold a criminal complaint of trespass.

My LL kept trying this with me despite me telling them I had a dog (with their permission) who is not good with strangers when I am not around.

I went to CAB to check my rights. I do not have to allow any inspections except for the gas safety. Their repeated requests for inspections were harassment and their contract clause that they could enter the property without the tenants permission if the tenant is unable to attend inspections within a reasonable timeframe is not worth the paper it is written on. I can change the lock without permission so long as I either change it back and/or give the LL a key to the new lock once I move out.

They're my ex-LL now. I'm in HA housing now and they don't even have a key to my property. They have a neighbourhood officer who comes to visit every few months but it's been made clear to me I can refuse her access, ask for the meeting to be in their offices or simply not engage with her at all if I wish to. She's nice and doesn't whine about pots in the sink and send me snotty letters saying she needs to come back in x days to 'inspect the sink once it's been properly cleaned', so I will probably keep letting her in.

I wouldn't go back to private rented if the LL was paying me to live there. While I reluctantly accept they're not all scum or parasites, I've yet to come across one who is not scum. I think decent LL are like the mythical MN chicken you can make 7 meals from. They don't exist outside of MN.

Jon My tenants have always been fine with me coming in. I've had one tenant complain and they were awkward tenants who didn't pay on time. Everyone else has been surprised at first that I keep a maintenance schedule which is shared with tenants so they know what's coming up. They also have explained to them upfront what regulations apply to their home. I think it's important tenants know when their home is a HMO and have an understanding of what I, as a LL, need to comply with.

Finally I have absolutely no desire to keep entering a tenants home. Proper LLs don't have the time or inclination for that sort of thing. If my tenants were upset they have never said anything and I've got very little turnover with tenants who have left done so because they had saved up and bought a home. Most have been shocked that I do things like replace bathrooms and kitchens that are old, replace carpet when it's worn and I normally give the tenants a choice over what they would like. As long as it doesn't cost an insane amount and is good quality I am open to spending a bit more for something that is most probably nicer anyway. In any case it's the labour which costs not the materials.

Frequency Dirty pans in a sink is the least of my concerns. It is totally unreasonable to pick on that and cite that as a reason for entering. The gas safety certificate is one inspection for a HMO. There are other inspections which are required, the fire safety is another one. Entering to inspect your dishes being cleaned is not!

As a LL I would have a huge problem with a tenant changing the locks without notice and providing me with a key to a door so I can access in case of emergency. I've had to enter a home twice on an emergency basis in 15 years and both times it was an absolute emergency with fire or police present. Had I not had the key and been there in 5mins they would have taken the door down. One of the occurrences, the tenant had left food on the stove while they went out and it had caught fire. The other incident was an alarm that was going off and had to be reset.

" LLs aren't scum or parasites. "

not all of them no, of course not. However, i do think it is parasitical to house non Engllish speakers, and (women from homeless shelters) in damp mouldy cottages with a dodgy illegal contract.
He has quite obviously chosen his tenants with care hasnt he?

• with a clause saying he can come in at any point if i am late with the rent. OFC landlords should have keys and do gas safety checks and so on, but this is quite different.